 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| People v. Stewart, No. 1-05-0842,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, May 16, 2006, Decided , May 16, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge "by agreement" continuances as defense needed search warrant State sought to attack legality of search. Controlled substance offense was supported by possession of scale and two handguns in addition to drugs, and weapon's conviction was supported by admission guns were kept for protection.
|
|||||
| Chi. Transit Auth. v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 1-04-2589,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner was properly granted summary judgment under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1005(c) where it sought declaratory judgment stating, in part, that it properly terminated agreements with media company. Where owner showed that terminations were in accordance with agreements, no evidence supported media company's argument.
|
|||||
| Costa v. Oliven, No. 2-05-0793,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the public policy of Illinois as set forth in Hewitt and 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/214 provided that cohabitation was illegal, and because any change in the law was for the legislature and not the courts to bring about, the trial court properly dismissed the first cohabitant's claims that were based on a "quasi-marital" relationship.
|
|||||
| People v. Gutierrez, No. 1-04-3362,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, May 17, 2006, Decided , May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Traffic and Criminal Conviction Surcharge Fund was not in effect at the time defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted and sentenced, a $ 4 penalty imposed by the trial court under 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/5-9-1(c-9) was an ex post facto law in violation of U.S. Const. art. I, § 10.
|
|||||
| People v. Harvey, No. 1-04-3030,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Entry of two convictions was improper for shooting of first victim, as defendant was convicted of both armed robbery/discharging a firearm and causing great bodily harm to the first victim, as well as aggravated battery with a firearm causing great bodily harm to him; thus, aggravated battery conviction was vacated under one act, one crime rule.
|
|||||
| People v. Majka, No. 2-04-0434,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State met its burden of providing a sufficient record to review issues in defendant's case involving the violation of an order of protection by providing a bystander's report as permitted by Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 323(c); appellate court could review the issues based on that substitute and a more comprehensive record would not have changed the outcome.
|
|||||
| People v. Whiting, No. 2-05-0306,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's desire to testify was repeatedly voiced, trial counsel's failure to allow defendant to testify amounted to ineffective assistance. Defendant was prejudiced as error was not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; defendant was only person who was in position to fully express her mental state and rebut testimony State's primary witness.
|
|||||
| People v. Youngblood, No. 2-04-0987,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/110-14 (2002), defendant was entitled to a $ 5-per-day credit toward statutory drug assessment for the time defendant spent in custody prior to sentencing; the $ 2,000 drug assessment, payable to the public treasury, was a fine, not a fee, and resembled a pecuniary punishment imposed as part of a sentence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
